Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration versus transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiography during cholecystectomy after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
(2023) In Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases 19(8). p.882-888- Abstract
Background: Treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) poses a particular challenge given the altered anatomy and inability to perform a standard endoscopic retrograde cholangiogram (ERC). The optimal treatment strategy for intraoperatively encountered CBD stones in post-RYGB patients has not been established. Objectives: To compare outcomes following laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) and laparoscopy-assisted transgastric ERC for CBDs during cholecystectomy in RYGB-operated patients. Setting: Swedish nationwide multi-registry study. Methods: The Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCs, GallRiks (n = 215,670), and the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg)... (More)
Background: Treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) poses a particular challenge given the altered anatomy and inability to perform a standard endoscopic retrograde cholangiogram (ERC). The optimal treatment strategy for intraoperatively encountered CBD stones in post-RYGB patients has not been established. Objectives: To compare outcomes following laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) and laparoscopy-assisted transgastric ERC for CBDs during cholecystectomy in RYGB-operated patients. Setting: Swedish nationwide multi-registry study. Methods: The Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCs, GallRiks (n = 215,670), and the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg) (n = 60,479) were cross-matched for cholecystectomies with intraoperatively encountered CBD stones in patients with previous RYGB surgery between 2011 and 2020. Results: Registry cross-matching found 550 patients. Both LTCBDE (n = 132) and transgastric ERC (n = 145) were comparable in terms of low rates of intraoperative adverse events (1% versus 2%) and postoperative adverse events within 30 days (16% versus 18%). LTCBDE required significantly shorter operating time (P = .005) by on average 31 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) [10.3–52.6], and was more often used for smaller stones <4 mm in size (30% versus 17%, P = .010). However, transgastric ERC was more often used in acute surgery (78% versus 63%, P = .006) and for larger stones >8 mm in size (25% versus 8%, P < .001). Conclusions: LTCBDE and transgastric ERC have similarly low complication rates for clearance of intraoperatively encountered CBD stones in RYGB-operated patients, but LTCBDE is faster while transgastric ERC is more often used in conjunction with larger bile duct stones.
(Less)
- author
- Zaigham, Hassan LU ; Enochsson, Lars ; Ottosson, Johan and Regnér, Sara LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2023
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Adult, Adverse events, Cholangiopancreatography, Cholecystectomy, Choledocholithiasis, Endoscopic retrograde, Gastric bypass, Postoperative complications, Treatment outcome
- in
- Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
- volume
- 19
- issue
- 8
- pages
- 882 - 888
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85149720005
- pmid:36870871
- ISSN
- 1550-7289
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.soard.2023.01.023
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- e9b2d3ab-6362-489a-907f-8384cc86c562
- date added to LUP
- 2023-04-03 11:03:06
- date last changed
- 2024-12-13 10:09:11
@article{e9b2d3ab-6362-489a-907f-8384cc86c562, abstract = {{<p>Background: Treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) poses a particular challenge given the altered anatomy and inability to perform a standard endoscopic retrograde cholangiogram (ERC). The optimal treatment strategy for intraoperatively encountered CBD stones in post-RYGB patients has not been established. Objectives: To compare outcomes following laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) and laparoscopy-assisted transgastric ERC for CBDs during cholecystectomy in RYGB-operated patients. Setting: Swedish nationwide multi-registry study. Methods: The Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCs, GallRiks (n = 215,670), and the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg) (n = 60,479) were cross-matched for cholecystectomies with intraoperatively encountered CBD stones in patients with previous RYGB surgery between 2011 and 2020. Results: Registry cross-matching found 550 patients. Both LTCBDE (n = 132) and transgastric ERC (n = 145) were comparable in terms of low rates of intraoperative adverse events (1% versus 2%) and postoperative adverse events within 30 days (16% versus 18%). LTCBDE required significantly shorter operating time (P = .005) by on average 31 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) [10.3–52.6], and was more often used for smaller stones <4 mm in size (30% versus 17%, P = .010). However, transgastric ERC was more often used in acute surgery (78% versus 63%, P = .006) and for larger stones >8 mm in size (25% versus 8%, P < .001). Conclusions: LTCBDE and transgastric ERC have similarly low complication rates for clearance of intraoperatively encountered CBD stones in RYGB-operated patients, but LTCBDE is faster while transgastric ERC is more often used in conjunction with larger bile duct stones.</p>}}, author = {{Zaigham, Hassan and Enochsson, Lars and Ottosson, Johan and Regnér, Sara}}, issn = {{1550-7289}}, keywords = {{Adult; Adverse events; Cholangiopancreatography; Cholecystectomy; Choledocholithiasis; Endoscopic retrograde; Gastric bypass; Postoperative complications; Treatment outcome}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{8}}, pages = {{882--888}}, publisher = {{Elsevier}}, series = {{Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases}}, title = {{Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration versus transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiography during cholecystectomy after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass}}, url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2023.01.023}}, doi = {{10.1016/j.soard.2023.01.023}}, volume = {{19}}, year = {{2023}}, }